By now, Mike Holmgren must know what he's going to do. Nothing that happens during an expected loss Sunday to Pittsburgh that will give the Browns back-to-back 5-11 seasons in the Eric Mangini era should change that.

Even a win vs. the Steelers shouldn't change that.

The die has been cast. There wouldn't seem to be any more information necessary. The Browns are what their record says they are, which is a team spinning its wheels.

Mangini is what he is -- the man in charge of a team that at this time next week will likely have lost 22 of the 32 games played on his watch.

Advertisement

They started this season 0-3 and they will likely end it 0-4. They weren't so hot in the middle, either.

Midseason wins over New Orleans and New England have been shown by subsequent events to be aberrations, not progress. There are at least two or three teams in the NFL that were worse than the Browns last year and are now better than the Browns this year.

The head coach now has a body of work from which Holmgren, hired just over a year ago to bring order to this chaos, can make a decision. Holmgren probably has already made that decision. He's just waiting for the end of the season to announce it.

Mangini stays or he goes.

We could know as soon as a week from today.

That is the only drama left in this bizarre season in which the Browns beat teams they should have lost to and lost to teams they should have beaten. The lack of steady, consistent progress has to be a big minus on the "pluses and minuses" scorecard Holmgren is keeping on Mangini during this keep-him-or-dump-him countdown to "Decision 2010."

Also troubling are some other nagging, perplexing coaching philosophies, one of which colored a forgettable 20-10 turnover-plagued loss to Baltimore on Sunday that had to have left Holmgren scratching his head as vigorously as the hearty 65,000 Eskimos in attendance scratched theirs.

That would be the oddball clock mismanagement at the end of the first half in which the Browns basically held themselves to a field goal instead of a touchdown.

That's right, they were forced to kick a face-saving field goal on third down because they ran out of time -- even though they jogged off the field at the half with two timeouts still in their pocket.

Seriously?

This has been a recurring theme for Mangini, who frequently seems strangely content to play for field goals instead of aggressively trying to score touchdowns. Sunday, even in a game that meant nothing for his going-nowhere team, Mangini played it so ridiculously close to the vest at the end of the half that he refused to use any timeouts even as his team was marching toward a potential touchdown that would have given the Browns a 14-13 lead at intermission.

Trailing, 13-7, the Browns began a possession at their own 37 with 3:59 left in the half. They had all three of their timeouts, but didn't use any of them until there were only 23 seconds left and they were at the Ravens' 16. They actually got as close as the 13, but then had to hurriedly kick a field goal on third down because the half was about to end -- with the Browns still having two timeouts.

Talk about being your own worst enemy.

Here's a radical thought: Use your timeouts and try to score a touchdown.

Mangini said he didn't because he didn't want to leave any time on the clock for Baltimore's offense -- even, apparently, if it meant the Browns had to settle for three points instead of seven.

Some would call that playing not to lose instead of playing to win. If Mangini is reluctant to aggressively play to win in game No. 15 in a going-nowhere season, when will he play to win?

The only times this season the Browns really seemed to expand the playbook with aggressive play-calling were the games against the Saints and Patriots -- two games nobody expected them to win.

In most of the other games, which seemed on paper to be winnable, the play-calling was much more predictable and conservative. As a result, the Browns lost a lot of close games, which is a direct reflection on coaching.

In games decided by seven points or fewer, they are 3-7. They have lost four games by four points or fewer. Win those four and they are 9-6 instead of 5-10. That would be progress.

This isn't.

And that could mean that the boss of a coach reluctant to let his team use any of their timeouts has already decided that the team needs a permanent timeout from him.